“Heart of Darkness: Anti-Imperialism, Racism, or Impressionism?” by Patrick Brantlinger: Summary and Critique

Main Ideas:

1. Chinua Achebe’s Critique of Conrad’s Racism
   • Achebe argues that Heart of Darkness is fundamentally racist because it portrays Africa as “the other world,” representing the “antithesis of Europe and civilization” (Brantlinger, p. 363).
   • He criticizes Conrad as “a bloody racist” who perpetuates comforting myths about Africa, arguing that white racism is so normalized that its presence in literature often goes unnoticed (p. 363).
2. Defenses of Conrad’s Alleged Racism
   • Critics like Cedric Watts argue that Conrad and Achebe are ultimately on the same side, suggesting that Heart of Darkness actually debunks racist imperialist myths (p. 364).
   • While acknowledging Conrad’s use of racist language, Watts contends that Conrad rises above racism through his critique of imperialism (p. 364).
3. Anti-Imperialist Themes in Heart of Darkness
   • Many scholars interpret the novel as an exposé of European imperialism, particularly in King Leopold II’s Congo (p. 365).
   • Marlow’s declaration that “the conquest of the earth … is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much” (p. 365) demonstrates Conrad’s recognition of the brutality of imperialism.
4. Impressionism as a Narrative Device
   • Brantlinger explores how Conrad’s impressionistic style creates ambiguity in the novel, making it difficult to determine whether Heart of Darkness is primarily anti-imperialist or racist (p. 365).
   • The use of multiple narrative filters, such as Marlow and the anonymous primary narrator, complicates the question of Conrad’s stance on imperialism and racism (p. 366).
5. Conrad’s Knowledge of Atrocities in the Congo
   • Conrad was appalled by the horrors of King Leopold’s rule, which he learned about both from his experiences in 1890 and from later reports, including those by the Congo Reform Association (p. 366).
   • Leopold’s regime led to the deaths of an estimated six million Congolese, with systematic forced labor, mutilations, and mass killings (p. 366).
6. Contradictory Portrayals of Africa
   • Despite Conrad’s condemnation of European imperialism, his depiction of Africa and Africans is deeply racialized.
   • He portrays Africa as a place of darkness, savagery, and cannibalism, reinforcing Victorian racist tropes (p. 371).
   • Brantlinger argues that, while Conrad critiques imperialism, he also presents Africa as the ultimate site of primitivism and horror, making the novel complicit in racist ideology (p. 371).
7. The Role of Kurtz as a Symbol
   • Kurtz represents both the excesses of imperialism and the abyss of human corruption (p. 372).
   • Some critics, such as Lionel Trilling, see Kurtz as a “hero of the spirit,” while others recognize him as a nihilistic figure whose final words—”The horror! The horror!”—reflect the moral collapse of imperialist ideology (p. 378).
   • Brantlinger suggests that Kurtz’s character is deliberately ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretations (p. 378).
8. Marlow’s Complicity and the “Hollow Voice”
   • Marlow admires Kurtz despite recognizing his atrocities, highlighting a contradiction in the novel’s moral stance (p. 379).
   • Brantlinger connects Kurtz’s “hollow voice” to Conrad’s own literary style, suggesting that Heart of Darkness itself is trapped in the same contradictions it critiques (p. 381).
   • The novel’s impressionistic ambiguity allows it to be both a critique of and a product of imperialist ideology (p. 381).
9. Conrad’s View of Imperialism and Nihilism
   • Conrad’s critique of empire is not necessarily anti-imperialist; rather, he mourns the loss of “true” imperialism, which he saw as a noble enterprise now corrupted by greed (p. 382).
   • Brantlinger argues that Heart of Darkness ultimately reflects Conrad’s own disillusionment with modern civilization and art, portraying a world where ideals have collapsed into fraud and nihilism (p. 382).
10. Final Assessment of Heart of Darkness
    • Brantlinger acknowledges the novel’s enduring power, arguing that it remains one of the few pre-World War I British novels that critically examines imperialism (p. 383).
    • However, its anti-imperialist message is undercut by its racism and impressionistic style, which obscure its political stance (p. 383).
    • Ultimately, Heart of Darkness is a novel about the failure of meaning itself—its final message is “the horror” of civilization’s own emptiness (p. 384).

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Critique of Imperialist Discourse:

• Brantlinger engages with Heart of Darkness as both a critique and an embodiment of colonial ideology. He acknowledges that the novel exposes the atrocities of Belgian rule but simultaneously reinforces racist views.
• “Heart of Darkness expresses not only what Conrad saw and partially recorded in his ‘Congo Diary,’ but also the revelations of atrocities which began appearing in the British press as early as 1888” (p. 366).
• This aligns with postcolonial theory’s concern with how colonial narratives construct and reinforce power dynamics.
• Manichean Oppositions in Colonial Discourse:

• He highlights how Conrad reproduces binary oppositions (light/dark, civilization/savagery), a central concern in postcolonial theory.
• “Despite momentous departures from traditional European usage . . . the fiction gravitates back to established practice, registering the view of two incompatible orders within a Manichean universe” (p. 371).
• This reflects Fanonian and Said’s critiques of colonial literature’s reliance on polarized worldviews.
• Response to Achebe’s Critique:

• Brantlinger situates his argument within Chinua Achebe’s famous criticism that Heart of Darkness is racist.
• “Achebe is therefore right to call Conrad’s portrayal of Africa and Africans ‘racist'” (p. 371).
• By engaging with Achebe, Brantlinger contributes to postcolonial debates over whether Conrad’s novel subverts or reinforces imperialism.

---

2. Marxist Literary Theory

• Imperialism as Economic Exploitation:

• Brantlinger aligns with Marxist critiques of imperialism, showing how Heart of Darkness reveals the economic motives behind colonialism.
• “To tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe” (p. 370).
• This aligns with Lenin’s view of imperialism as an economic venture.
• Commodity Fetishism:

• Drawing on Edward Said, Brantlinger suggests that Conrad critiques the commodification of African land and people under capitalism.
• “Imperialism itself is perceived as the dark within Europe . . . yet despite momentous departures, the fiction gravitates back to established practice” (p. 371).
• This reflects Marxist concerns with how ideology masks economic exploitation.

---

3. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

• Kurtz as the Freudian Id:

• Brantlinger connects Kurtz’s descent into savagery with Freudian theories of the unconscious, particularly the id.
• “It little matters what, in terms of psychological symbolism, we . . . say [Kurtz] represents: whether the Freudian id or the Jungian shadow or more vaguely the outlaw” (p. 375).
• This aligns with Freudian interpretations that see Heart of Darkness as an exploration of suppressed desires.
• The Novel as a Psychological Journey:

• Heart of Darkness is interpreted as an inward psychological journey where Kurtz represents repressed European desires.
• “Guerard adds that ‘it little matters what, in terms of psychological symbolism, we . . . say [Kurtz] represents: whether the Freudian id or the Jungian shadow or more vaguely the outlaw'” (p. 375).
• This aligns with psychoanalytic readings of literature as an expression of repressed impulses.

---

4. Formalism & Narratology

• Impressionism and Narrative Ambiguity:

• Brantlinger discusses how Conrad’s impressionistic style complicates the novel’s meaning.
• “The narrative frame filters everything that is said not just through Marlow, but also through the anonymous primary narrator” (p. 365).
• This contributes to narratological discussions of unreliable narration.
• Schizophrenic Textuality (Fredric Jameson’s Contribution):

• He applies Fredric Jameson’s theory of “schizophrenic writing,” arguing that Conrad’s novel simultaneously critiques and embodies imperialist ideology.
• “Conrad’s fiction betrays a symptomatic split between a modernist ‘will to style’ and the reified, mass culture tendencies of romance conventions” (p. 374).
• This aligns with postmodernist and narratological critiques of textual contradictions.

---

5. New Historicism

• Contextualizing Heart of Darkness in Imperial History:

• Brantlinger situates the novel within historical events such as King Leopold’s atrocities in the Congo.
• “The bloodiest period in the history of Leopold’s regime began about a year later” (p. 368).
• This approach reflects New Historicist concerns with embedding literary texts in their socio-political contexts.
• Conrad’s Engagement with Colonial Propaganda:

• He examines how Heart of Darkness reflects and critiques the propaganda justifying imperialism.
• “More revolting to see without a mask was that falsehood which had been hiding under the words which for ages had spurred men to noble deeds” (p. 367).
• This aligns with New Historicist critiques of language as a tool of power.

---

6. Deconstruction

• The Collapse of Meaning in Heart of Darkness:

• Brantlinger explores how Conrad’s language undoes its own messages.
• “Conrad constructs a story in which the ‘meaning’ does not lie at the center, not even at ‘the heart of darkness,’ but elsewhere, in ‘misty halos’ and ‘moonshine'” (p. 375).
• This aligns with Derridean deconstruction, where texts subvert their own intended meanings.
• Undermining the Stability of Binary Oppositions:

• While Heart of Darkness relies on light/dark and civilization/savagery oppositions, it also destabilizes them.
• “Viewed one way, Conrad’s anti-imperialist story condemns the murderous racism of Kurtz’s imperative. Viewed another way, Conrad’s racist story voices that very imperative” (p. 381).
• This aligns with Derrida’s argument that texts contain the seeds of their own deconstruction.